Terror verdict against Heinrich Habig

To the
President of the Regional Court of Bochum
Prof. Dr. Dieter Coburger
Josef-Neuberger-Str.
44787 Bochum
beA
AZ. 20/2023
Selfkant, June 30.6.2023, XNUMX
Supervision complaint against the presiding judge of the 12th criminal division
Mrs. Breywisch-Lepping
Dear Mr. District Court President Prof. Dr. Coburger,
I hereby file against the presiding judge Mrs. Breywisch-Lepping
Supervision Complaint
.
Reasons:
I am the defendant Heinrich-Karl Werner Habig's defense attorney in criminal matters
against Habig – AZ. 12 KLs-35 Js 540/22-6/23 and against Habig et al. - AZ. 12 KLs-35Js
540/22-34/22.
Since my appointment as a campaign defender from the beginning of February 2023, I have been negative
The senses are always fascinated by what presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping means by a
appropriate negotiation management understands and what understanding they in particular
from the principle of publicity.
So there would have been several occasions to attack Mrs. Breywisch-Lepping
Submit a service complaint. The numerous requests for bias that the
Defender for the co-defendant wife of my client, colleague Stefan
Schlueter, and I since February because of the repeated arbitrary and overt
have submitted highly biased litigation by the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping,
document that.
LAWYER | Wilfried Schmitz Volksbank Heinsberg eG
IBAN: DE78 3706 9412 5002 4440 13
BIC: GENODED1HRB
2
The principle of publicity has been applied in these criminal cases since the 1st day of the hearing
consistently violated, in particular by the arrangement and maintenance of a
additional security gate in the entrance area to the meeting room, but also
through a downright harassing treatment of the spectators by the presiding judge.
Such a security checkpoint was never concreted by any
comprehensible circumstances and cannot be justified at any time. all in
Opposite. The audience has always behaved very peacefully, even outside of the
boardroom. For example, many viewers are also in during breaks in meetings
the rooms of the canteen again and again members of this 12th criminal division and also the
Representatives of the public prosecutor's office in Bochum met in person, without it being too
any negative incidents would have occurred.
It really looked like this and nothing else, the "security situation" that supposedly led to a
additional security checkpoint.
But what finally knocked the bottom out of the barrel is that
The fact that the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping in the proceedings to AZ. 12
KLs-35 Js 540/22-6/23 on 27.6 all (!) spectators after the end of the session (against
18.00 p.m.) prevented him from leaving the meeting room for several minutes.
From a comparable procedure of a presiding judge - in any
Negotiation – I hadn't even heard of it until then.
So would you please explain to me and to the public at large why the
Viewers of a public criminal hearing in your district court in this way and
Way harassed and from (further) attending public meetings in
these criminal cases be held?
Reason for this grotesque arrangement, which in my opinion even the suspicion of coercion in office
and the deprivation of liberty, was the fact that some visitors my
Clients on June 27.6.2023, XNUMX immediately after the end of his very emotional
spontaneously applauded the closing speech, which deeply touched all visitors.
Several spectators were - as they later reported to me - in the face of my words
Clients moved to tears and couldn't help but give him a little in return
Applause to pay great respect.
How can you react so cold and heartless in the face of such circumstances and that
want to capture the audience for such a deeply human reaction,
so that some of them can be fined for this applause??
Everyone present, ie all those involved in the proceedings and also the spectators, approached
this point in time also assumes that the meeting will take place immediately after this anyway
Closing speech of my client interrupted and on June 29.6.2023, XNUMX with the announcement
of a "partial" judgment would be continued.
Even against this background, it was not at all possible for the orderly process
of this sitting of 27.6.2023 June XNUMX in any way with this spontaneous applause
can be affected.
LAWYER | Wilfried Schmitz Volksbank Heinsberg eG
IBAN: DE78 3706 9412 5002 4440 13
BIC: GENODED1HRB
3
I have experienced it several times - including in proceedings before a federal court -
that participants in the proceedings were spontaneously applauded by the audience for their contributions
has been. The presiding judges always reacted very moderately to such events.
But the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping, who was in the criminal case of both
The Habigs once sharply reprimanded two visitors to the meeting for
have talked in the inaudible range (!!). No party to the proceedings had one
heard disturbing conversation. At the request of the election defenders, the chairman confirmed
Judge Breywisch-Lepping said the whispers from these two visitors were for her too
was only visually perceptible.
On June 28.6.2023, XNUMX, the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping in her capacity as pres.
Judge of the 12th major criminal division on the occasion of the applause described above in the
Then there was even another session on June 27.6.2023, XNUMX in the two criminal cases mentioned above
enact police decree, the following regulations in each case under No. I
includes (quote):
"All spectators have an official ID card for their performance when they enter the hall
person to submit. No access to the hall will be granted without presenting an ID card.
Copies/photos must be made of the ID cards. The illuminations are
to be handed over to the chairpersons immediately after the meeting and will be sent to them at the latest
destroyed on the working day following the day of the meeting, provided they are not for prosecution
of criminal offences, administrative offenses or to enforce regulatory measures
are needed."
That's the icing on the cake for the whole misconduct.
In the proceedings for 12 KLs-35 Js 540/22-6/23, I still have written documents on June 28.6.2023, XNUMX
requested that these regulations under Section I. be amended immediately, at least before the admission of the
audience on this criminal matter on June 29.6.2023, XNUMX, of course without success. In which
In the aforementioned parallel proceedings by the Habigs, this application was then made public
session.
In any case, in my experience as a lawyer, the aforementioned regulations are without any
example and obviously violate the principle of publicity.
I have to state here that such regulations are also an absolute reason for revision
not deepen. Such statements are reserved for the reasons for the appeal.
Even if it doesn't really need to be explained further: the order
that "all" spectators enter the hall with an official ID of their
person must present, otherwise they will not be allowed access to the hall
appropriate to deter interested parties from visiting this criminal case.
Consequently, on June 29.6.2023, XNUMX, there were heated debates in front of the meeting room
Criminal case between some people who wanted to attend the trial and some of the
present sergeant.
It can also be assumed that some people under these circumstances
refrain from entering the meeting room. I can't do that on my own
confirm perception, since I am of course in the boardroom at the beginning of the meeting
LAWYER | Wilfried Schmitz Volksbank Heinsberg eG
IBAN: DE78 3706 9412 5002 4440 13
BIC: GENODED1HRB
4
found. However, my client's wife informed me of corresponding observations
reported.
No visitor created a reason for issuing such an order or
also only be able to create.
The clapping after the end of the defendant's closing speech on June 27.6.2023, XNUMX
(around 18.00 p.m.) does not justify such an order under any circumstances
point of view, regardless of the fact that the singular clapping after (!) a
Closing speech could not disturb anyone involved in the proceedings and was also clear for the spectators
was that the session was closed anyway after the defendant's closing speech
would be.
This arrangement – not justified in any word in this decree of June 28.6.2023, XNUMX – was
and is in no way caused and is unlawful in every respect as that
The aim pursued with it can only consist of interested parties visiting this site
Deter criminal cases and visitors even for perfectly trivial incidents such as
being able to punish clapping after a closing speech. Because exactly to this
The presiding judge would like to be able to determine their personal details. A visitor
"could" be so unabashed to applaud again, which then absolutely with
would be punishable by a fine.
The presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping should actually know that one
Visitors to a meeting are not immediately fined for such trifles
can prove.
People who would actually disrupt a public meeting can regularly do so
be called to order by being moderately admonished.
The threat or even immediate imposition of a fine for donating
Applause after a closing speech at the very end of a session? The preventive
Collecting copies of ID cards to enable simplified identification of
Identity of a "Cheerer"?
That would basically just be ridiculous if it wasn't the principle of publicity
would trample.
What is particularly disconcerting is the arrangement that these ID cards also
Copies/photos are to be made so that they can be taken after the Chairperson's meeting
can be handed over.
This arrangement is particularly suitable for attracting potential viewers from one
Visit to deal with the criminal case, especially since many viewers of the presiding judge anyway
met with deep distrust.
Incidentally, these instructions under Section I correspond exactly to what the viewers
has already been expected on the 1st day of the hearing. Here, too, should visitors who
At that point in time, their IDs could not be noticed in any way as a nuisance
submit so that they can be copied for the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping. On
Demand from those affected – who also called the election defense attorneys to the court
have named witnesses for this – an official has expressly confirmed that these
LAWYER | Wilfried Schmitz Volksbank Heinsberg eG
IBAN: DE78 3706 9412 5002 4440 13
BIC: GENODED1HRB
5
Regulation based on a corresponding order from the presiding judge Breywisch-
go back to Lepping.
The presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping later, when the election defenders told her
have reproached, denied having issued such an order on the 1st day of the hearing
have. This would allegedly have been an arbitrary action by a sergeant.
And now the presiding judge reveals that through these very session police
Orders of June 28.6.2023, XNUMX that it is actually capable of such an order in
to set the world.
This subsequently confirms the suspicion that the presiding judge had already
Negotiation day for an order with the same content to the viewers
was responsible and not some arbitrarily acting constable. That would
mean that the defendants, the defense attorneys and the audience from the pres.
Judge Breywisch-Lepping would have been lied to on this issue. That must
be clarified under official law.
Individual Serious Violations – applauding after a lecture is included
Certainty no such violation - could also be independent of such if necessary
Arrangement to be clarified in the meeting room.
However, there are such serious violations of the rules of the session in this procedure -
As I said - never given.
For this reason alone it is not clear why repeated formally with cannons on sparrows
was shot, unless you're willing to face the realities: the spectators,
who want to pursue these criminal cases should be harassed and thus prevented from visiting the
criminal cases are held.
Such orders cannot be issued simply because the great interest of
Public in the progress of this criminal case by the presiding judge increasingly as
burden is felt.
The realization of the principle of publicity does not depend on the
Spectators behave so calmly that they, as it were, for the presiding judge
become "invisible".
Again: It is also not justifiable from any point of view that on 27.6.2023
after the end of the session around 18 p.m. all (!) spectators for several minutes
were prevented from leaving the meeting room.
It is surprising that the presiding judge with such an approach an absolute
Reason for revision after the next creates.
Therefore, if no further application for bias was submitted before June 29.6.2023, XNUMX,
then only because the defendant finally wanted to have clarity and experience with
the content of the partial judgment in his criminal case.
On this occasion I would like to point out that throughout
several months of negotiations to clearly observe again and again that the Chairman
Judge Breywisch-Lepping the audience, which is so interested in the course of this
Criminal cases has met with downright hostility.
LAWYER | Wilfried Schmitz Volksbank Heinsberg eG
IBAN: DE78 3706 9412 5002 4440 13
BIC: GENODED1HRB
6
The great public interest in the fate of the Habigs brings them - like you
exhibits nervous behavior during many sessions - obviously in very, very large ones
Embarrassment.
Is there something to hide or cover up here?
Does this criminal process reveal facts, such as unfair investigative methods that
for the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping or in particular the representative of
Public Prosecutor, Mrs. Linnenbank, somehow uncomfortable or even embarrassing?
There are numerous concrete indications of this. And there are numerous specific ones
Evidence that such facts, for example, a systematic deception of all
involved former patients and witnesses and the application of massive pressure
to many of these witnesses during house searches until the
Reasons for the judgment are denied across the board and thus literally covered up
should.
All of this should only be deepened in the reasoning for the revision, but I have that too
impression that the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping has a special interest in
the misconduct of the prosecutor Dr. to sweep the linen bench under the carpet.
This suspicion is based on the fact that the two are good friends, in particular
by the fact that during the entire criminal hearing for all process observers -
and also the election defenders - the impression has increasingly solidified that the pres.
Judge Breywisch-Lepping and prosecutor Dr. Linnenbank apparently good friends
are.
So the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping always with one - sometimes
embarrassed – smile the eye contact with the public prosecutor Dr. linen bank wanted,
just as if she were always asking for confirmation, especially when the
advocates have spoken.
Statements by the campaign defenders were repeatedly interrupted, objected to or with
endless questions disturbed during the behavior and statements of the prosecutor
dr Linnenbank have actually never been objected to by the presiding judge, even then
not if Dr. Linnenbank some witnesses even at a time when they did
had to know better in open court by saying that she wanted to fool
could not have been vaccinated because their Covid-19 antibody test was negative
know.
Through my defense lecture, which is based on the expert statements of Prof.
Cullen references, I demonstrated early on that the antibody test just
can't prove that someone wasn't "vaccinated" or had a Covid-19
received injection.
This does not need to be deepened here, as it has already been mentioned in several briefs
This criminal case happened and that would also depend on the actual occasion of this
Distracting supervisory complaints: The deeply vexatious and undignified handling of the
Chairman Breywisch-Lepping with the audience in the criminal cases of the Habigs.
Incidentally: After the meeting on June 27.6.2023, XNUMX, visitors observed the process
that the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping and the public prosecutor Dr. linen bench
LAWYER | Wilfried Schmitz Volksbank Heinsberg eG
IBAN: DE78 3706 9412 5002 4440 13
BIC: GENODED1HRB
7
went to the parking lot together. As the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping
remarked that she was being watched, she is said to have reacted with little satisfaction.
The neutrality and independence of the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping is thus
strongly questioned.
She would have her own embarrassment over their apparent friendly ones
Relationship to Mrs. Dr. Linnenbank admit publicly and the consequences of their
have to draw bias.
In any case, the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping through her arbitrary and
bullying of the audience, consistent with the principle of
public wants to observe what is happening in the proceedings in these criminal cases, repeatedly
deeply undignified behavior and severe damage to the reputation of the Bochum judiciary
added.
That this reputation of the Bochum judiciary through the judgment announced yesterday
has been literally pulverized, you will also notice that for the foreseeable future
must, even if the local press in Bochum judges the unspeakable
Judgment were involved, certainly showered with praise and a verbal one
wish to bestow laurels of victory.

3 Replies to “Terror verdict against Heinrich Habig”

atriebel says:

June 30, 2023 at 3:17 pm

To the
President of the Regional Court of Bochum
Prof. Dr. Dieter Coburger
Josef-Neuberger-Str.
44787 Bochum
beA
AZ. 20/2023
Selfkant, June 30.6.2023, XNUMX
Supervision complaint against the presiding judge of the 12th criminal division
Mrs. Breywisch-Lepping
Dear Mr. District Court President Prof. Dr. Coburger,
I hereby file against the presiding judge Mrs. Breywisch-Lepping
Supervision Complaint
.
Reasons:
I am the defendant Heinrich-Karl Werner Habig's defense attorney in criminal matters
against Habig – AZ. 12 KLs-35 Js 540/22-6/23 and against Habig et al. - AZ. 12 KLs-35Js
540/22-34/22.
Since my appointment as a campaign defender from the beginning of February 2023, I have been negative
The senses are always fascinated by what presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping means by a
appropriate negotiation management understands and what understanding they in particular
from the principle of publicity.
So there would have been several occasions to attack Mrs. Breywisch-Lepping
Submit a service complaint. The numerous requests for bias that the
Defender for the co-defendant wife of my client, colleague Stefan
Schlueter, and I since February because of the repeated arbitrary and overt
have submitted highly biased litigation by the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping,
document that.
LAWYER | Wilfried Schmitz Volksbank Heinsberg eG
IBAN: DE78 3706 9412 5002 4440 13
BIC: GENODED1HRB
2
The principle of publicity has been applied in these criminal cases since the 1st day of the hearing
consistently violated, in particular by the arrangement and maintenance of a
additional security gate in the entrance area to the meeting room, but also
through a downright harassing treatment of the spectators by the presiding judge.
Such a security checkpoint was never concreted by any
comprehensible circumstances and cannot be justified at any time. all in
Opposite. The audience has always behaved very peacefully, even outside of the
boardroom. For example, many viewers are also in during breaks in meetings
the rooms of the canteen again and again members of this 12th criminal division and also the
Representatives of the public prosecutor's office in Bochum met in person, without it being too
any negative incidents would have occurred.
It really looked like this and nothing else, the "security situation" that supposedly led to a
additional security checkpoint.
But what finally knocked the bottom out of the barrel is that
The fact that the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping in the proceedings to AZ. 12
KLs-35 Js 540/22-6/23 on 27.6 all (!) spectators after the end of the session (against
18.00 p.m.) prevented him from leaving the meeting room for several minutes.
From a comparable procedure of a presiding judge - in any
Negotiation – I hadn't even heard of it until then.
So would you please explain to me and to the public at large why the
Viewers of a public criminal hearing in your district court in this way and
Way harassed and from (further) attending public meetings in
these criminal cases be held?
Reason for this grotesque arrangement, which in my opinion even the suspicion of coercion in office
and the deprivation of liberty, was the fact that some visitors my
Clients on June 27.6.2023, XNUMX immediately after the end of his very emotional
spontaneously applauded the closing speech, which deeply touched all visitors.
Several spectators were - as they later reported to me - in the face of my words
Clients moved to tears and couldn't help but give him a little in return
Applause to pay great respect.
How can you react so cold and heartless in the face of such circumstances and that
want to capture the audience for such a deeply human reaction,
so that some of them can be fined for this applause??
Everyone present, ie all those involved in the proceedings and also the spectators, approached
this point in time also assumes that the meeting will take place immediately after this anyway
Closing speech of my client interrupted and on June 29.6.2023, XNUMX with the announcement
of a "partial" judgment would be continued.
Even against this background, it was not at all possible for the orderly process
of this sitting of 27.6.2023 June XNUMX in any way with this spontaneous applause
can be affected.
LAWYER | Wilfried Schmitz Volksbank Heinsberg eG
IBAN: DE78 3706 9412 5002 4440 13
BIC: GENODED1HRB
3
I have experienced it several times - including in proceedings before a federal court -
that participants in the proceedings were spontaneously applauded by the audience for their contributions
has been. The presiding judges always reacted very moderately to such events.
But the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping, who was in the criminal case of both
The Habigs once sharply reprimanded two visitors to the meeting for
have talked in the inaudible range (!!). No party to the proceedings had one
heard disturbing conversation. At the request of the election defenders, the chairman confirmed
Judge Breywisch-Lepping said the whispers from these two visitors were for her too
was only visually perceptible.
On June 28.6.2023, XNUMX, the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping in her capacity as pres.
Judge of the 12th major criminal division on the occasion of the applause described above in the
Then there was even another session on June 27.6.2023, XNUMX in the two criminal cases mentioned above
enact police decree, the following regulations in each case under No. I
includes (quote):
"All spectators have an official ID card for their performance when they enter the hall
person to submit. No access to the hall will be granted without presenting an ID card.
Copies/photos must be made of the ID cards. The illuminations are
to be handed over to the chairpersons immediately after the meeting and will be sent to them at the latest
destroyed on the working day following the day of the meeting, provided they are not for prosecution
of criminal offences, administrative offenses or to enforce regulatory measures
are needed."
That's the icing on the cake for the whole misconduct.
In the proceedings for 12 KLs-35 Js 540/22-6/23, I still have written documents on June 28.6.2023, XNUMX
requested that these regulations under Section I. be amended immediately, at least before the admission of the
audience on this criminal matter on June 29.6.2023, XNUMX, of course without success. In which
In the aforementioned parallel proceedings by the Habigs, this application was then made public
session.
In any case, in my experience as a lawyer, the aforementioned regulations are without any
example and obviously violate the principle of publicity.
I have to state here that such regulations are also an absolute reason for revision
not deepen. Such statements are reserved for the reasons for the appeal.
Even if it doesn't really need to be explained further: the order
that "all" spectators enter the hall with an official ID of their
person must present, otherwise they will not be allowed access to the hall
appropriate to deter interested parties from visiting this criminal case.
Consequently, on June 29.6.2023, XNUMX, there were heated debates in front of the meeting room
Criminal case between some people who wanted to attend the trial and some of the
present sergeant.
It can also be assumed that some people under these circumstances
refrain from entering the meeting room. I can't do that on my own
confirm perception, since I am of course in the boardroom at the beginning of the meeting
LAWYER | Wilfried Schmitz Volksbank Heinsberg eG
IBAN: DE78 3706 9412 5002 4440 13
BIC: GENODED1HRB
4
found. However, my client's wife informed me of corresponding observations
reported.
No visitor created a reason for issuing such an order or
also only be able to create.
The clapping after the end of the defendant's closing speech on June 27.6.2023, XNUMX
(around 18.00 p.m.) does not justify such an order under any circumstances
point of view, regardless of the fact that the singular clapping after (!) a
Closing speech could not disturb anyone involved in the proceedings and was also clear for the spectators
was that the session was closed anyway after the defendant's closing speech
would be.
This arrangement – not justified in any word in this decree of June 28.6.2023, XNUMX – was
and is in no way caused and is unlawful in every respect as that
The aim pursued with it can only consist of interested parties visiting this site
Deter criminal cases and visitors even for perfectly trivial incidents such as
being able to punish clapping after a closing speech. Because exactly to this
The presiding judge would like to be able to determine their personal details. A visitor
"could" be so unabashed to applaud again, which then absolutely with
would be punishable by a fine.
The presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping should actually know that one
Visitors to a meeting are not immediately fined for such trifles
can prove.
People who would actually disrupt a public meeting can regularly do so
be called to order by being moderately admonished.
The threat or even immediate imposition of a fine for donating
Applause after a closing speech at the very end of a session? The preventive
Collecting copies of ID cards to enable simplified identification of
Identity of a "Cheerer"?
That would basically just be ridiculous if it wasn't the principle of publicity
would trample.
What is particularly disconcerting is the arrangement that these ID cards also
Copies/photos are to be made so that they can be taken after the Chairperson's meeting
can be handed over.
This arrangement is particularly suitable for attracting potential viewers from one
Visit to deal with the criminal case, especially since many viewers of the presiding judge anyway
met with deep distrust.
Incidentally, these instructions under Section I correspond exactly to what the viewers
has already been expected on the 1st day of the hearing. Here, too, should visitors who
At that point in time, their IDs could not be noticed in any way as a nuisance
submit so that they can be copied for the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping. On
Demand from those affected – who also called the election defense attorneys to the court
have named witnesses for this – an official has expressly confirmed that these
LAWYER | Wilfried Schmitz Volksbank Heinsberg eG
IBAN: DE78 3706 9412 5002 4440 13
BIC: GENODED1HRB
5
Regulation based on a corresponding order from the presiding judge Breywisch-
go back to Lepping.
The presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping later, when the election defenders told her
have reproached, denied having issued such an order on the 1st day of the hearing
have. This would allegedly have been an arbitrary action by a sergeant.
And now the presiding judge reveals that through these very session police
Orders of June 28.6.2023, XNUMX that it is actually capable of such an order in
to set the world.
This subsequently confirms the suspicion that the presiding judge had already
Negotiation day for an order with the same content to the viewers
was responsible and not some arbitrarily acting constable. That would
mean that the defendants, the defense attorneys and the audience from the pres.
Judge Breywisch-Lepping would have been lied to on this issue. That must
be clarified under official law.
Individual Serious Violations – applauding after a lecture is included
Certainty no such violation - could also be independent of such if necessary
Arrangement to be clarified in the meeting room.
However, there are such serious violations of the rules of the session in this procedure -
As I said - never given.
For this reason alone it is not clear why repeated formally with cannons on sparrows
was shot, unless you're willing to face the realities: the spectators,
who want to pursue these criminal cases should be harassed and thus prevented from visiting the
criminal cases are held.
Such orders cannot be issued simply because the great interest of
Public in the progress of this criminal case by the presiding judge increasingly as
burden is felt.
The realization of the principle of publicity does not depend on the
Spectators behave so calmly that they, as it were, for the presiding judge
become "invisible".
Again: It is also not justifiable from any point of view that on 27.6.2023
after the end of the session around 18 p.m. all (!) spectators for several minutes
were prevented from leaving the meeting room.
It is surprising that the presiding judge with such an approach an absolute
Reason for revision after the next creates.
Therefore, if no further application for bias was submitted before June 29.6.2023, XNUMX,
then only because the defendant finally wanted to have clarity and experience with
the content of the partial judgment in his criminal case.
On this occasion I would like to point out that throughout
several months of negotiations to clearly observe again and again that the Chairman
Judge Breywisch-Lepping the audience, which is so interested in the course of this
Criminal cases has met with downright hostility.
LAWYER | Wilfried Schmitz Volksbank Heinsberg eG
IBAN: DE78 3706 9412 5002 4440 13
BIC: GENODED1HRB
6
The great public interest in the fate of the Habigs brings them - like you
exhibits nervous behavior during many sessions - obviously in very, very large ones
Embarrassment.
Is there something to hide or cover up here?
Does this criminal process reveal facts, such as unfair investigative methods that
for the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping or in particular the representative of
Public Prosecutor, Mrs. Linnenbank, somehow uncomfortable or even embarrassing?
There are numerous concrete indications of this. And there are numerous specific ones
Evidence that such facts, for example, a systematic deception of all
involved former patients and witnesses and the application of massive pressure
to many of these witnesses during house searches until the
Reasons for the judgment are denied across the board and thus literally covered up
should.
All of this should only be deepened in the reasoning for the revision, but I have that too
impression that the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping has a special interest in
the misconduct of the prosecutor Dr. to sweep the linen bench under the carpet.
This suspicion is based on the fact that the two are good friends, in particular
by the fact that during the entire criminal hearing for all process observers -
and also the election defenders - the impression has increasingly solidified that the pres.
Judge Breywisch-Lepping and prosecutor Dr. Linnenbank apparently good friends
are.
So the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping always with one - sometimes
embarrassed – smile the eye contact with the public prosecutor Dr. linen bank wanted,
just as if she were always asking for confirmation, especially when the
advocates have spoken.
Statements by the campaign defenders were repeatedly interrupted, objected to or with
endless questions disturbed during the behavior and statements of the prosecutor
dr Linnenbank have actually never been objected to by the presiding judge, even then
not if Dr. Linnenbank some witnesses even at a time when they did
had to know better in open court by saying that she wanted to fool
could not have been vaccinated because their Covid-19 antibody test was negative
know.
Through my defense lecture, which is based on the expert statements of Prof.
Cullen references, I demonstrated early on that the antibody test just
can't prove that someone wasn't "vaccinated" or had a Covid-19
received injection.
This does not need to be deepened here, as it has already been mentioned in several briefs
This criminal case happened and that would also depend on the actual occasion of this
Distracting supervisory complaints: The deeply vexatious and undignified handling of the
Chairman Breywisch-Lepping with the audience in the criminal cases of the Habigs.
Incidentally: After the meeting on June 27.6.2023, XNUMX, visitors observed the process
that the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping and the public prosecutor Dr. linen bench
LAWYER | Wilfried Schmitz Volksbank Heinsberg eG
IBAN: DE78 3706 9412 5002 4440 13
BIC: GENODED1HRB
7
went to the parking lot together. As the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping
remarked that she was being watched, she is said to have reacted with little satisfaction.
The neutrality and independence of the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping is thus
strongly questioned.
She would have her own embarrassment over their apparent friendly ones
Relationship to Mrs. Dr. Linnenbank admit publicly and the consequences of their
have to draw bias.
In any case, the presiding judge Breywisch-Lepping through her arbitrary and
bullying of the audience, consistent with the principle of
public wants to observe what is happening in the proceedings in these criminal cases, repeatedly
deeply undignified behavior and severe damage to the reputation of the Bochum judiciary
added.
That this reputation of the Bochum judiciary through the judgment announced yesterday
has been literally pulverized, you will also notice that for the foreseeable future
must, even if the local press in Bochum judges the unspeakable
Judgment were involved, certainly showered with praise and a verbal one
wish to bestow laurels of victory.

atriebel says:

July 1, 2023 at 8:37 pm

https://tkp.at/2023/07/01/herzkrankheiten-und-thrombosen-als-folge-der-impfung-aerzte-wissen-bescheid-und-keiner-spricht-darueber/

atriebel says:

July 22, 2023 at 5:14 pm

“Recently, almost unbelievable political justice in Germany: the sentencing of a couple of doctors to unconditional prison terms because of allegedly false certificates in order to free people from the health-damaging obligation to wear masks and vaccinations only leads to further damage for patients and doctors overall. Individual and effective treatment of diseases is made difficult or even impossible by such judgments. It continues the series of right-wing extremist Politurteile in Germany.”

https://tkp.at/2023/07/22/schandurteil-in-deutschland-gegen-aerztepaar-richtet-sich-gegen-freie-wahl-der-patienten/

Dr. Andreas Triebel

Blog

Terror verdict against Heinrich Habig

3 Replies to “Terror verdict against Heinrich Habig”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply